Discussion Title: Are the rich or the poor more responsible for environmental damages?

1. The rich are more responsible for environmental damages than the poor.
1.1. Con: Poverty often leads to uneducated and uninformed individuals who do not care about the environment as they are just striving hard to survive. In essence, their priorities are survival based rather than sustainability.
1.1.1. Pro: Third World countries often suffer from trash that is dumped carelessly by their citizens.
1.1.1.1. Con: Third World countries are often importers of trash from developed countries, such as [e-waste in Ghana](http://www.atchuup.com/countries-used-as-dumping-grounds-of-worlds-trash/).
1.1.1.2. Con: To regulate trash production, Third World countries can and do impose rules on their population. [Kenya](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/28/kenya-brings-in-worlds-toughest-plastic-bag-ban-four-years-jail-or-40000-fine), for example, banned plastic bags.
1.1.2. Con: If the poor are struggling to survive, it is unfair to burden them with the responsibility for addressing environmental damage.
1.2. Pro: People with appropriate social background and education do harm to nature more consciously; they obviously know what "green" means, but they might not care.
1.2.1. Con: Environmental consciousness is [dependent on age](https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/sgees/about/staff/pdf/Morrisonand-BeerConsumptionandenvironment.pdf), an inverted U shape peaking in the middle age. This holds true when taking into account the occupation, an indicator of social background.
1.2.2. Pro: In [England](https://fullfact.org/education/climate-change-school-curriculum/), all children learn about climate change in school.
1.3. Con: Poverty forces one to venture into more extensive agriculture by clearing marginal land for cultivation.
1.3.1. Con: The fact that poverty forces people to do this to survive should excuse them of responsibility.
1.3.2. Pro: This will expose the soil to destructive environmental forces. The vegetation cover is loosed and will lead to more rapid erosion of the top soil needed for cultivation
1.3.3. Pro: Some animals are forced to flee and others will extinguish
1.3.4. Pro: This will also lead to air and water pollution leading to more environmental hazard
1.3.5. Pro: Traditional farming lacks fertilizers and thus cannot produce as many yield per existing acre. One way to achieve the same output is to use more land.
1.3.5.1. Pro: Fertilizers are [too expensive](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/dec/05/costly-fertiliser-holds-back-a-green-revolution-in-africa) for poor farmers.
1.4. Con: Developing countries have poor or non-existent [waste management systems](https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/waste-management/garbage-challenges-in-developing-countries.html).
1.5. Con: Poverty can also lead to a rapid growing population, meaning that there will be more people who will exploit the environment.
1.5.1. Con: Low income households have too few capital goods to represent much of a draw on the world’s finite reserves of metals and other non-renewable resources.
1.5.2. Pro: As the population increases, more houses are needed.
1.5.3. Pro: The poor, especially the rural poor, exclusively depends on environmentally damaging biomass fuel.
1.5.3.1. Pro: Around [2.8 million people](https://www.seforall.org/goal-7-targets/access) are forced to rely on biomass fuel to meet their energy needs, largely as a a result of poverty.
1.5.3.2. Pro: The burning of such substances causes air pollution, especially indoor pollution, to which [400-700 million](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V7SHrJBl9Z4C&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=400+-+700+million+people+exposed+to+biomass+fuel&source=bl&ots=AzHYILQFbf&sig=ACfU3U2cwuJ9bU-YBmNZG_QInIUjNN1Rkw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwilxpDpybHqAhVBt3EKHRdmBukQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=400%20-%20700%20million%20people%20exposed%20to%20biomass%20fuel&f=false) people, mostly women and children, are exposed to every year. \(p. 136\)
1.5.3.3. Pro: Smoke and fumes from indoors contribute to a lot of child dead and causes more smoke related diseases than cigarette smoking
1.5.4. Con: Most of the houses in which low income groups live \(and often build for themselves\) use recycled or reclaimed materials and little use of cement and other materials with a high energy input.
1.5.5. Pro: For instance, where low-income settlements have developed around reservoirs into which they dump wastes.
1.5.6. Con: In developing countries mortaility rates are much higher.
1.5.7. Pro: For instance, where low-income settlements have developed on slopes which, when cleared for housing, contribute to serious soil erosion.
1.6. Con: -> See 1.5.3.
1.7. Pro: The rich are bigger contributors to the problem of climate change. As such, they are more responsible.
1.7.1. Pro: The top industries that are most damaging to the environment are [oil and fashion](https://www.alternet.org/environment/its-second-dirtiest-thing-world-and-youre-wearing-it), which are primarily used by the middle- upper class.
1.7.1.1. Pro: They are the main consumers of [fast fashion](https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-018-0433-7). The production of these clothes creates a lot of pollution and most clothes end up in landfills.
1.7.2. Pro: Rich people's demands for food are both more lavish and more wasteful.
1.7.3. Pro: Rich people have higher transportation costs; they travel longer distances and more often.
1.7.3.1. Pro: As one of the main contributing factors to [increased greenhouse gases](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/air-travel-emissions.html) is flying and only people of means can fly, they should be responsible for offsetting the greenhouse gases produced when they fly.
1.7.3.2. Pro: The rich have more access to vehicles such as cars or planes due to the amount of wealth they have, therefore, damage dealt to the environment is mainly derived from the rich. This means that they are more responsible for the declining health of the environment.
1.7.4. Con: Rich Indians [consume less](https://www.cseindia.org/a-commentary-on-consumption-rich-indians-versus-rich-and-poor-americans-9019) than poor US citizens.
1.7.5. Con: The rich are often forced to make unsustainable choices due to their limited consumer options. They should not be responsible for things outside of their control.
1.7.5.1. Pro: In wealthy, built-up urban areas, purchasing local produce may be challenging. This forces people to rely on supermarkets which import foods from all over the world.
1.7.6. Pro: The world's [richest 10%](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam) produce a disproportionate 50% of global carbon emissions.
1.7.7. Pro: Wealthy individuals are able to buy more and consume more food, products and recourse, and have a "more" mentality.
1.8. Con: The [Environmental Kuznets Curve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Kuznets_curve) suggests that environmental degradation worsens as an economy develops, until per capita income reaches a high enough point.
1.8.1. Pro: Before the turning point, there is a steady increase of environmental degradation as the income per capita increases.
1.9. Pro: The rich are more able to make an active change for a better environment.
1.9.1. Pro: The poor don't have options to choose from while struggling to survive.
1.9.2. Pro: Rich people often control or deeply influence the governments that regulate big business.
1.9.2.1. Pro: Past CEOs of large corporations have found themselves at the top of the government regulation organization.
1.9.2.2. Pro: Rich corporations and individuals can lobby the governments, thereby buying votes in congress.
1.9.3. Pro: Rich people build factories, mines, powerplants and other big businesses that have big effects on our environment, so they are the ones with the power to decide how these will run.
1.9.3.1. Con: Poor people work in these "factories, mines, powerplants and other big businesses" to earn a livelihood and so actually they are the working hands \(quite literally\) behind all the "big effects on our environment". So if they collectively decide to demand better practices, things could change for the better.
1.9.3.1.1. Con: Often collective action is prevent by the regimes poor people live in, making it impossible to collectively demand better practices.
1.9.4. Con: The impoverished outnumber the rich and can thus lead to a greater change.
1.9.5. Pro: Consumers have the power to influence producers' choices by choosing to purchase items that are environmentally advantageous.
1.9.5.1. Pro: Demand simply responds to supply to whatever customers buy the most is what will be produced the most.
1.9.5.2. Con: Sustainable choices are often [more expensive](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/buying-green-is-too-pricey-for-the-average-consumer/) because environmentally damaging companies still dominate the market. Not everyone can afford a hybrid car or sustainable food choices.